Could Alberta Ever Get a Castle Law?

[HiTempguy1]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/corbella-crime-epidemic-leaves-rural-families-frightened-in-their-homes

Is it even possible? I am 100% behind castle law.

[Gestalt]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/corbella-crime-epidemic-leaves-rural-families-frightened-in-their-homes

Is it even possible? I am 100% behind castle law.

My understanding is they pretty well charge everyone that uses a gun, but we actually have pretty good laws, just cant overdo it in the mind of a reasonable person. becasue jurors almost always side with the victim of the break in convictions are very rare. But still doesnt excuse being charged in the first place.

I was reading this during the saskatchewan crap the farmer went throuh. It's pretty informative.

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/canadian-self-defense-law-three-things-you-absolutely-must-know/#axzz58QJu3jOd
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader

[rx7boi]

Some of these rural areas can be problematic. I hate when the RCMP tries to discourage people from taking things into their own hands yet they frequently have only one or two members in a remote detachment to respond to incidents. At the same time, these fucking government clowns talk about how much funding they've been putting into police services.

It's like they're basically saying, tough shit deal with it. It's not our fuckin' problem if thieves want to take your shit because we'll get there when we get there. It's too bad if our response time isn't fast enough and they're gone by the time we get there since we'll only allow you to cower in your home. :cry:

People should be free to defend themselves but the adjunct to that is they'll still need to be accountable for whatever actions they take against other people so I think there is a fine line to consider.

[schurchill39]

I have very very strong opinions on the Stanley case as I have very close friends in the area and can sympathize with the amount of crime and destruction law abiding citizens are forced to deal with. With the Okotoks case I feel extremely bad for the farmer protecting his land as his life is going to be royally fucked from here on out because of some scummy meth heads.

I hunt gophers out on a property by High River and the property owner has horror stories about what life is like living out side of Calgary. That video from the article is a regular occurrence on his property as well as his neighbors. When I am out there shooting he asks that I text him before I go, after I leave, and what vehicle I am in because he will get tons of calls from his neighbors (as he should). There are also lots of people who stop by to talk to me which is great to see everyone looking out for each other.

I 100% support castle law for rural property owners as I feel the government, police system, and justice system has failed them in protecting their lives and property.

[AndyL]

The problem is the catch and release were stuck with in the court system... There's 8-10 meth heads around here who are responsible for 90% of the rural property crime.

The best we get is when they fail to appear, get held for 3 months until court for failing to appear - then they're back out on bail causing shit, stealing 4-5 cars a day, gas & dashes, they know how to game the system - and they're just allowed to continue...

If you're arrested in a stolen vehicle running from the cops, while facing charges for the same - there's 0 excuse for bail to be granted again so you can go and do again tomorrow.

[revelations]

The Castle law does apply to your place of immediate dwelling or business. If you are going after shit heads in a garage, then the courts will be less lenient than if they were actually in your house. There was a case not too long ago in SK where a woman shot an unarmed intruder in her home and was not even charged.

If I had a farm, I would (also) have a long range rifle. Shoot these crack heads and then bury them. Leave no witnesses and dont bother the rcmp (much tougher to do in the city).

[revelations]

My understanding is they pretty well charge everyone that uses a gun, but we actually have pretty good laws, just cant overdo it in the mind of a reasonable person. becasue jurors almost always side with the victim of the break in convictions are very rare. But still doesnt excuse being charged in the first place.

I was reading this during the saskatchewan crap the farmer went throuh. It's pretty informative.

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/canadian-self-defense-law-three-things-you-absolutely-must-know/#axzz58QJu3jOd
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/im-glad-he-shot-him-newfoundland-man-up-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader

Just regarding your link to the Gilbert Budgell case, all charges (to the self defense person) were dropped.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/murder-charge-gilbert-budgell-dropped-1.4351371

[Gestalt]

The Castle law does apply to your place of immediate dwelling or business. If you are going after shit heads in a garage, then the courts will be less lenient than if they were actually in your house. There was a case not too long ago in SK where a woman shot an unarmed intruder in her home and was not even charged.

If I had a farm, I would (also) have a long range rifle. Shoot these crack heads and then bury them. Leave no witnesses and dont bother the rcmp.

the problem there is your way you will get charged and go to jail for a very long time. shooting them and reporting, you will get charnged but you probably wont get convicted.

The one concern I had was in one article, they made it sound like you cant brandish a firearm. If i was going to confront cirminals on my property, i would want to be armed in case they are. So that makes it sound like they want you to hid in your celler let the criminals do what they want while it takes the rcmp 20 minutes to get there. And that's just wrong

[revelations]

the problem there is your way you will get charged and go to jail for a very long time.

How exactly will you get charged when no one knows anything and the witnesses are dead?

[Gestalt]

How exactly will you get charged when no one knows anything and the witnesses are dead?

surprisingly in the recent case the neighbors heard gunshots and called the police. I would think rural people hear guns all the time for gophers, coyotes whatever.

[schurchill39]

surprisingly in the recent case the neighbors heard gunshots and called the police. I would think rural people hear guns all the time for gophers, coyotes whatever.

Most of the time gun shots get reported when they are at strange times like outside of Okotoks at 5am. A .22 and a .17HMR sound very different from a hunting rifle.

[Seth1968]

If I had a farm, I would (also) have a long range rifle. Shoot these crack heads and then bury them. Leave no witnesses and dont bother the rcmp (much tougher to do in the city).

:clap:

No one is going to miss these threats to society, and if truth be told, the cops don't want to have to deal with this crap either. In other words, the true (not what they say in the media) cop's position, just like any sane person working person, is shoot, shovel, and shut up.

[speedog]

Dogs. Big, ugly protective dogs and don't put a sign up that says 'Beware of dog' because that's just admitting guilt.

- - - Updated - - -


:clap:

No one is going to miss these threats to society, and if truth be told, the cops don't want to have to deal with this crap either. In other words, the true (not what they say in the media) cop's position, just like any sane person working person, is shoot, shovel, and shut up.

Typical beyond talk but the reality wouldn't be the same.

[dirtsniffer]

Guard dogs are the way I'd go as well.

[gwill]

castle law just for rural property owners?? That makes zero sense. In regards to the okotoks issue... the second he left his house with a gun and shot the thief has removed any basis for defence.

I wouldn't mind better protections for home owners in general but castle laws arent going to solve any crime issues. Castle law doctrine wont allow a home owner to shoot any thief..

The misconception by many is that castle law will give them thr freedom for a vigilante style justice. There is a happy medium in the middle that every home owner should have.

Unfortunately the liberals have already shot down any castle laws thanks to all the red necks and racists who came out of the closets due the Stanley trial. That could have been a good segway into property rights but it wasnt. The out cry all but ruled out castle laws while the liberals are in charge.

[AndyL]

81356

Caucasian ovcharka

Jus sayin'

[Seth1968]

Typical beyond talk but the reality wouldn't be the same.

Uh huh.

'typical Beyond"

Fuck you and your arrogant and self righteous position.

[killramos]

Canadians don’t want more rights, they prefer the state tell them what to do and take care of them.

The closest thing to a libertarian issue that the country has gotten behind in the last 20 years is weed.

I don’t see any way this gets traction due to the sheer scale of bad information and emotional trash out there about firearms and self defense.

I think if more Canadians knew how messed up our self defense laws are there would be more of a conversation but so long as that information remains safely hidden in the legalese of the criminal code and case law the sheep stay silent.

[Matty_10]

Dogs are great, except in almost all theft instances here involving dogs they are drugged.

[J-hop]

Dogs are great, except in almost all theft instances here involving dogs they are drugged.

That and true overprotective guard dogs aren’t nice to have around. It’s much more likely that you’ll end up in court trying to keep you dog from being euthanized after biting someone innocent than it actually saving you from an intruder.

[dj_patm]

.

[Kloubek]

The one concern I had was in one article, they made it sound like you cant brandish a firearm.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but perhaps it is in the term "brandish". As far as I know, it's not illegal to carry a rifle in Canada. I *believe* one can actually walk right down the street with one. (If this is incorrect, someone please direct me to the actual written law). It's just when you point the weapon at someone, perhaps THAT is considered brandishing. But at the end of the day, it's your word against the criminal so I wouldn't be too concerned.

The law is purposely ambiguous, but unfortunately that ambiguity is what confuses the public and makes them worried they will be charged if they do something it turns out they weren't supposed to. But here's a fact: The law allows you to use as much force as is necessary to protect yourself. This means if someone breaks into your house, it's dark and you can't see much, if you shoot them you just say you were scared for your life and thought they might have a weapon, and you will not be convicted. So many people think that you aren't allowed to do that here, and that simply isn't the case. If, however, they can prove that you were not in fear for your life THEN you will get in trouble. The law was not written with the intention of keeping people from doing what they had to do... instead, it was written to ensure people didn't do what they DIDN'T have to do.

The remaining problem, however, is that the police may still charge you. Now, that might not seem like a big deal if you are going to be let off, but that doesn't mean you won't be responsible for paying for your defense - which can cost a shit ton of money.

At the end of the day, you do what you NEED to do. This doesn't mean going hog-wild on someone's head with a baseball bat if they are breaking into your car, and it doesn't mean shooting someone in the back when he bolts from your house in the middle of the night. But it DOES mean using whatever force is required to keep yourself safe.

And honestly, as much as I'm keen on defending my home, myself, and my family, I think I might have difficulty living with myself if I took someone's life simply because I was pissed they broke into my car or stole the empties from the side of my house.

I had this exact conversation with a cop who was attending a community association meeting when I lived in Calgary. He stated that contrary to belief, if you feel threatened you "open up on that motherf*er". (His exact words).

One last thing, but don't quote me: You are also allowed to use whatever force is required to stop a crime from being committed. And we are all capable and empowered by law of making a citizens arrest when necessary, and fleeing that arrest is a crime. Therefore (in my logic), if you DO find someone breaking into your car you can place them under citizens arrest. If they flee, they are no longer breaking into your car but they ARE committing a crime by fleeing your arrest. Therefore, logic dictates you can do whatever is necessary to keep them from fleeing; of course, if it is not deemed excessive.

Something to think about.


That and true overprotective guard dogs aren’t nice to have around. It’s much more likely that you’ll end up in court trying to keep you dog from being euthanized after biting someone innocent than it actually saving you from an intruder.

A dog is, by nature, a pack animal and will protect the pack if it feels it can. You don't need to train a dog to be a guard dog, and I feel that ones that ARE trained to be a guard dog are generally more aggressive than those which were not. I can guarantee that if someone broke in to my house they'd require hospitalization the moment my dog viewed him as a threat, and yet my dog is the sweetest animal around humans anyone could hope for. But if that did happen, I'm pretty sure the courts would be pretty forgiving. I'd like to see a single Canadian case where a dog bit an intruder and was euthanized for it.

[revelations]

surprisingly in the recent case the neighbors heard gunshots and called the police. I would think rural people hear guns all the time for gophers, coyotes whatever.

Im not talking about some acreage 5 steps from Okotoks, im talking about a house on a 1/4 section of land with no neighbors visible.

If someone is shooting people in a place like that (where many others heard) then the cops should be pretty close and thats not really a rural area then in my books.

[tonytiger55]

I don't think it would happen.
But I would support the law only with the condition that if you shoot the intruders, it has to be mandatory that one of the bullets has to be in their ass and you have to hog tie them whilst waiting for the police to arrive.

[Gman.45]

Dogs are a possibility, but in order to be effective, you need the right kind of dog. This costs a ton of $ in terms of breed, training ($$$$), and long term costs like food and health care ($$$$$$$). My company got into the "tactical canine" business in Afghanistan, you're looking at tens of thousands to purchase, train, and keep just a single dog on hand. You can "self train" your dog, but it'll never be up to snuff to truly secure your property, plus if such a poorly trained dog bites and nomnomnoms someone, and it turns out you didn't have it trained by a pro, hello large lawsuit, even with a trespasser. Having a dog take down a threat is one thing, begin able to call him off is completely another. This needs to be considered for civilians using furcoat razerblades for defense tools.

I don't discount recommending dogs, I'd have at least one or two myself if I was on a rural property far from L/E support, but these days $ is tight, and they do cost - a lot. A lot more than other defensive options, by far.

What Revelations is suggesting is what it could come to, a combination of massive crime rates, low RCMP numbers per zone on patrol, and a very angry and frustrated group of victims who are getting nothing but BS from their government. "We're putting lots of $ into L/E and prevention and will release the plans in a few weeks". Bahahaha. Good one.

[rx7boi]

Uh huh.

'typical Beyond"

Fuck you and your arrogant and self righteous position.

Shut the fuck up, loser. :rolleyes: Everyone here knows you like to talk big but you'd never have the balls to say it anywhere else.

You're far from shooting someone and burying a body, big man. Why don't you take your big talk and slink back where you crawled out from?

[phil98z24]

No. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.

Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.

Just can’t see it happening. :dunno:

[J-hop]

A dog is, by nature, a pack animal and will protect the pack if it feels it can. You don't need to train a dog to be a guard dog, and I feel that ones that ARE trained to be a guard dog are generally more aggressive than those which were not. I can guarantee that if someone broke in to my house they'd require hospitalization the moment my dog viewed him as a threat, and yet my dog is the sweetest animal around humans anyone could hope for. But if that did happen, I'm pretty sure the courts would be pretty forgiving. I'd like to see a single Canadian case where a dog bit an intruder and was euthanized for it.

What you’re getting at is based on outdated pseudo science though.

Studies on feral dogs have shown repeatedly dogs don’t form cohesive packs like wolves.

Breeding practices over 10,000+ years have been focused around the single premise of selectively breeding out aggressive behavioural traits towards humans.

What I meant about being more likely to be in court fighting a euthanisia is that to have an effective gaurd dog you need to train aggression towards humans, it doesn’t come naturally unless your dog is unbalanced/fearful. If you do so you have a higher chance of your dog biting a kid (for example) than you ever would having it defending your house in the extremely low chance that you have an aggressive intruder.

[dirtsniffer]

Why would a guard dog be in your house. Shit my country family barely let their pet dogs in the house.

[J-hop]

Why would a guard dog be in your house. Shit my country family barely let their pet dogs in the house.

Property, point still stands lol.

[gwill]

No. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.

Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.

Just can’t see it happening. :dunno:

The only gripe with the laws is how many variables there are Or how everyone interprets the laws differently. Rob Breckenridge had a lawyer on his show that showed a perfect example of the laws being dealt with differently. This lawyer quoted a case out of Ontario where a farmer got a year in jail for shooting warning shots over some thieves heads but at a recent trial in sask for Gerald Stanley the judge said it was reasonable for Stanley to shoot a few warning shots off.

For the most part I think the laws are good. We dont need people blasting off guns at every stranger near their house..

The shoot first mentality shared by many online is disturbing.

[gwill]

Shut the fuck up, loser. :rolleyes: Everyone here knows you like to talk big but you'd never have the balls to say it anywhere else.

You're far from shooting someone and burying a body, big man. Why don't you take your big talk and slink back where you crawled out from?

no responsible gun owner would give a stupid response like that.... they should take away the pal of any idiot who thinks it's open season on a thief.

The lack of respect to our gun laws or self defence laws is disturbing. Or perhaps people are so dumb they don't know the rules of engagement.....

Most here probably don't own many guns to begin with.

[J-hop]

no responsible gun owner would give a stupid response like that.... they should take away the pal of any idiot who thinks it's open season on a thief.

The lack of respect to our gun laws or self defence laws is disturbing. Or perhaps people are so dumb they don't know the rules of engagement.....

Most here probably don't own many guns to begin with.

No kidding. But I think it’s lack of understanding/ignorance.

If you could callously whip out a gun and shoot another human without a second thought or remorse regardless of the situation you’d be a psychopath.

[gwill]

No kidding. But I think it’s lack of understanding/ignorance.

If you could callously whip out a gun and shoot another human without a second thought or remorse regardless of the situation you’d be a psychopath.

Phil said it perfectly when he said people really need to understand the law and understand your rights. Most are too ignorant to bother with that...

I agree someone must have serious issues if they get so emotional over another person being arrested that they say they'll shoot any thief.

[rx7boi]

no responsible gun owner would give a stupid response like that.... they should take away the pal of any idiot who thinks it's open season on a thief.

The lack of respect to our gun laws or self defence laws is disturbing. Or perhaps people are so dumb they don't know the rules of engagement.....

Most here probably don't own many guns to begin with.


No kidding. But I think it’s lack of understanding/ignorance.

If you could callously whip out a gun and shoot another human without a second thought or remorse regardless of the situation you’d be a psychopath.

I think that's overthinking it a bit. He just didn't like that he got called out but that's what happens when you say stupid shit.

Seth stopped by to show us he's a big man but statistically he's got a lesser chance of shooting/burying a thief than finding his own testicles.

Stay tuned as I'm sure he'll be back to regale us with more tales of the things he's too big of a pussy to actually do.

[adam c]

No. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.

Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.

Just can’t see it happening. :dunno:

Serious question, my wife is tiny, <5'

If someone like 6'3" broke into our house, what could she use to defend herself that wouldn't put her in jail?

[Kloubek]

Serious question, my wife is tiny, <5'

If someone like 6'3" broke into our house, what could she use to defend herself that wouldn't put her in jail?

Does it really matter about size? Though visually more imposing, an experienced fighter at 5'10 would kick his ass.

It not about what she could use. Its about the situation. Did he advance on her and give her no choice in fear of her life? Then she could take him out with whatever she pleases.

Did he walk in the door, see someone then turn around to leave? Probably couldnt use a nerf gun without it potentially being considered assault.

All you need to do is justify the force used. (And convince the court of that justification).

As for the "dogs not being a pack animal", Shop, that simply not true. Abandoned dogs roam the streets in packs all the time around the world. Dogs have been known to attack in packs. And the alpha/beta hierarchy followed by dogs has absolutely been proven.

And if you think my dog wouldnt protect us in the event someone came in and attacked my family, you are woefully mistaken. Accounts of dogs defending their families are so countless its laughable anyone would suggest otherwise. Yes I agree its out of fear, but that fear is a result of the dog being afraid for the safety of itself and its family.

[J-hop]

Does it really matter about size? Though visually more imposing, an experienced fighter at 5'10 would kick his ass.

It not about what she could use. Its about the situation. Did he advance on her and give her no choice in fear of her life? Then she could take him out with whatever she pleases.

Did he walk in the door, see someone then turn around to leave? Probably couldnt use a nerf gun without it potentially being considered assault.

All you need to do is justify the force used. (And convince the court of that justification).

As for the "dogs not being a pack animal", Shop, that simply not true. Abandoned dogs roam the streets in packs all the time around the world. Dogs have been known to attack in packs. And the alpha/beta hierarchy followed by dogs has absolutely been proven.

And if you think my dog wouldnt protect us in the event someone came in and attacked my family, you are woefully mistaken. Accounts of dogs defending their families are so countless its laughable anyone would suggest otherwise. Yes I agree its out of fear, but that fear is a result of the dog being afraid for the safety of itself and its family.

A lot to discuss there but no, alpha theory in dogs has long since been discredited. Dominance theory, alpha mentality (gotta love owners that still alpha roll their dogs), positive punishment actually never had any scientific basis and is currently only taught by non-certified trainers. CCPDT is the only recognized ‘governing’ body for trainers in North America and if you teach that nonsense you can’t be certified by them as only science based methods can be taught.

A lot of the dominance ideas were based on analogs to wolves which was mostly from work done by David Mech. David later recanted a good chunk of his work because his ideas around dominance theory were based on data collected in a highly unnatural environment (captive wolves in close quarters) and actually opposed what has been more recently studied in nature. Drawing analogs from wolves is also not even an appropriate thing to do anyways.

Dogs don’t form cohesive packs like wolves do, read up on it a bit. The packs you would see in say Mexico are extremely disjointed and would resemble something closer to a Black Friday shopper mob than a wolf pack.

It’s actually pretty interesting when you start looking at the differences between current canids. Wolves, dogs and coyotes are all extremely different socially.

Anyways enough on the tangent, what about them thar gunz!!!

[Gman.45]

No. That’s up to the feds, for one thing, and the right of people to defend their property doesn’t supersede the inherent unreasonableness of using lethal or serious force to do so. Castle law isn’t even a given in a lot of states and even in those where it exists, it’s still not exactly cut and dry.

Our laws with respect to use of force are sufficient, and IMO like anything else it’s up to people to understand and apply it properly. Further to that, the courts and system respect that people don’t necessarily know that and are put into some awful situations, so they also use reasonable tests when comparing a citizens use of force to say, the police or a member of the military, where it’s about being put in the same situation and what another person with the same training, knowledge, skill, etc, would do.

Just can’t see it happening. :dunno:

Agreed, but what happens is that the "thief" ends up not being a threat to just the property he's after once he's confronted by the property or home owner. Obviously engaging someone with possibly lethal fire over a stolen flatscreen is ridiculous, but when that threat is in your home or property, typically on drugs or in withdrawal(even more dangerous), the potential for violence against those in the home increases incredibly.

Put it to you this way - L/E in Canada uses car blockades all the time and has stitched up the occupants of the vehicle as it comes towards it - how is that different than stitching up a threat in your home if he moves towards you in any way? Yes, backshooting threats over property is not in the use of force tree, nor should it be, but any threatening moves or refusals to leave or any verbal threats of violence used against you, we should be able to engage under the exact same criteria L/E has used in the past, particularly in a low light condition engagement where you can't see if the threat in your home has a weapon unless by the chance the lights are turned on or you have skill in using lights in a CQB situation.

[revelations]

Serious question, my wife is tiny, <5'

If someone like 6'3" broke into our house, what could she use to defend herself that wouldn't put her in jail?

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/mother-killed-man-in-self-defence-while-protecting-herself-children-in-preston-avenue-duplex-policex

Size makes no matter. The last thing you will be doing at 3am is trying to measure someone in the house in the dark.

If you as a woman are alone in a dwelling, you have the right, and (most importantly) backing case law, to use deadly force against an intruder. Obviously shooting them in the back isnt what you want though - but basic weapons training is a good thing too.

[gwill]

I'm curious what the okotoks farmers excuse will be for shooting someone. Friends of his have posted online that he shot warning shots into the ground and the bullets ricochet into the suspects.

If it's true its not going to be good for him...

It's also really really stupid for the farmer to be telling so many people to the point that the info is shared around online by multiple people.

If your going to defend your home or property know your limits and your rights. More importantly stfu and don't say anything.

[Gestalt]

I'm curious what the okotoks farmers excuse will be for shooting someone. Friends of his have posted online that he shot warning shots into the ground and the bullets ricochet into the suspects.

If it's true its not going to be good for him...

It's also really really stupid for the farmer to be telling so many people to the point that the info is shared around online by multiple people.

If your going to defend your home or property know your limits and your rights. More importantly stfu and don't say anything.

He'll get off because a jury of Canadians doesn't like being forced to be victims in crime. Hide in your basement till they take or do what they want. Nope. Wont fly.

And your not gonna confront a crook unarmed. Thats dumb.

[phil98z24]

The only gripe with the laws is how many variables there are Or how everyone interprets the laws differently. Rob Breckenridge had a lawyer on his show that showed a perfect example of the laws being dealt with differently. This lawyer quoted a case out of Ontario where a farmer got a year in jail for shooting warning shots over some thieves heads but at a recent trial in sask for Gerald Stanley the judge said it was reasonable for Stanley to shoot a few warning shots off.

For the most part I think the laws are good. We dont need people blasting off guns at every stranger near their house..

The shoot first mentality shared by many online is disturbing.

I agree that the variables make it sticky. At least the courts and the Crown review these incidents with a reasonable test that generally follows common sense that shares the same mindset you, me, and most people have. I agree with you that firing warning shots at or around people for property offences or at people near their house is ridiculous. That's potentially forfeiting a person's life for something that in the grand scheme of things is pretty minimal, IMO.


Serious question, my wife is tiny, <5'

If someone like 6'3" broke into our house, what could she use to defend herself that wouldn't put her in jail?

I know it sounds legally complicated but it's not, and I hope you don't think I'm being condescending here by saying it's really quite simple. The Criminal Code states to use whatever force is deemed necessary to repel an attack or prevent grievous bodily harm or death (that's obviously paraphrased from s. 34 and s.35, but you get the jist). As I've said here before, and even in my line or work, get the hell out of there or out of the way and if you can't do that, then do what needs to be done. There is such a thing as major force disparity when it comes to the size and capability of an attacker, and if an assault can only reasonably be repelled using serious force, then that's what the Criminal Code says is legal and that's what needs to happen.


Agreed, but what happens is that the "thief" ends up not being a threat to just the property he's after once he's confronted by the property or home owner. Obviously engaging someone with possibly lethal fire over a stolen flatscreen is ridiculous, but when that threat is in your home or property, typically on drugs or in withdrawal(even more dangerous), the potential for violence against those in the home increases incredibly.

Put it to you this way - L/E in Canada uses car blockades all the time and has stitched up the occupants of the vehicle as it comes towards it - how is that different than stitching up a threat in your home if he moves towards you in any way? Yes, backshooting threats over property is not in the use of force tree, nor should it be, but any threatening moves or refusals to leave or any verbal threats of violence used against you, we should be able to engage under the exact same criteria L/E has used in the past, particularly in a low light condition engagement where you can't see if the threat in your home has a weapon unless by the chance the lights are turned on or you have skill in using lights in a CQB situation.

I'm going to disagree with you completely on all these points. I know I'm about to sound like a dick by saying this, but this is coming from a place of experience and dealing with the boundaries of these laws all the time, so please don't think I'm being a jerk here.

Comparing use of carefully considered, intelligence driven tactics and decisions in order to make a lawful apprehension of an offender who is causing a serious public safety risk which could potentially end in lethal force, and using lethal force to repel someone who is merely in your presence and moving towards you are completely different scenarios.

One is borne out of a bonafide, reasonable and probable belief that someone will be hurt if someone in a position of authority with a lawful duty to act doesn't do so, who is also afforded the necessary protections under section 25 of the CC to act in extraordinary circumstances. That's also an intelligence led tactic, as most LE tactics are, that are generally reactive and based on what we know and what foreseeable consequences could arise out of inaction compared to action. LE is also doing that because they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that person MUST be apprehended there and then and is doing so under lawful authority.

The other is borne out a fear that because someone is in a home and could potentially be strung out or other nefarious reasons that likely don't present themselves at the time. The police can't use lethal force without a bonafide, reasonable and probable belief that it's absolutely required and can be articulated. I would never be able to justify shooting someone in the dark or who refused to obey a lawful order (especially merely being told to leave a premises) just because they started moving towards me when I can't see a weapon or any means of causing me grievous bodily harm or death. That's negligent, and reckless. A citizen engaging using the exact same criteria as LE has in the past is actually completely opposite of what you're saying they should be able to do. Can you imagine some idiot who is drunk and bumbles into someone's home, not obeying orders and being a generally ignorant louse like most hammered people are, advancing on someone and ending up with rounds in their body for....... what? Being unlawfully in a dwelling house?

Again, we are comparing apples to oranges here, but as a general rule using lethal force to repel a "potential" lethal encounter without a reasonable basis to believe that's what's going to happen is simply not reasonable. Just my two cents.

[killramos]

Sounds nice in theory.

But in reality the crown will drag you through a dozen criminal firearm storage etc. charges for years punishing you with legal bills while it times how many seconds it thinks it should take you to get a firearm out of a safe, retrieve ammunition, and load said firearm in order to use it to reasonably defend yourself. Or you could just plead guilty, whatever works.

The true reality of how our legal system functions around using a firearm in self defense is, in a situation where someone has broken into your home and intends to harm you, you are just flipping a coin as to whether you prefer to be viciously attacked/killed, or end up in prison.

It’s actually pretty likely that the methhead who broke into your house and attacked you will be back on the streets before you are free and clear.

[phil98z24]

Yeah, what would I know about it, eh?

[HiTempguy1]

Yeah, what would I know about it, eh?

In your post above Killramos, you actually highlighted exactly the reason castle law should be a thing, because as a normal citizen, I have no idea what someone in the state described is going to do.

So yes, perfectly reasonable response would be "a few rounds" as you state.

Also as killramos stated, the fact remains that you basically have to put your life on hold and possibly go bankrupt defending yourself for another person's choice to commit a crime.

[killramos]

Yeah, what would I know about it, eh?

Considering its a scenario that you will never have to face because of your choice of profession and the liberties it affords you.

Probably not nearly as much as you think you do.

Whether you like it or not or are willing to admit it or not the average canadian citizen is completely fucked when it comes to using a firearm in self defense. Police officers? Not so much.

[gwill]

killramos - it's up to the police to hold people accountable to the laws. If you own guns you should know the laws around storage. I accept these laws for what they are.

I don't get what your issue is with the police doing their job. I own a lot of guns yet I would never jump to the conclusion that ill be ending someones life. It is a last resort for me not my first. I know what to expect if I ever have to use lethal force in my home defending my family.

The problem with most people is they take defending their property as the same as defending their family. Too many online jump right to their guns for every little issue they may face. The misinformed gun owners are the bigger risk to themselves then the thieves we hear about.

I'm glad Phils able to provide a perspective on this as there are way too many people who are insanely misinformed in what one could do. There's a few other forums who could benefit from Phil's perspective in this area.

[gwill]

Considering its a scenario that you will never have to face because of your choice of profession and the liberties it affords you.

Probably not nearly as much as you think you do.

Whether you like it or not or are willing to admit it or not the average canadian citizen is completely fucked when it comes to using a firearm in self defense. Police officers? Not so much.

Your guns should be a last resort to deal with an issue. If your first thought is to grab a gun to shoot someone then you've got bigger issues you need to address.

I've dealt with a home invasion, my house has been robbed before and I've never had an inkling to run and grab my guns. The only time I've done so was a few weeks back when the police called my wife at 1 am trying to track her down. Apparently they had some serious concerns related to her work that they needed to make sure she was safe and to warn her.

Even with what I felt was a serious issue where I may have to defend my family I was fully aware if I used lethal force that It better be justified and it would still be my last resort.

Our gun laws are not unreasonable.. as mentioned earlier they could be improved upon for clarity sake.

[phil98z24]

.

- - - Updated - - -


Considering its a scenario that you will never have to face because of your choice of profession and the liberties it affords you.

Probably not nearly as much as you think you do.

Whether you like it or not or are willing to admit it or not the average canadian citizen is completely fucked when it comes to using a firearm in self defense. Police officers? Not so much.

I wasn’t aware that you were privy to all the caselaw, my personal and professional experiences, and my investigative dealings with such things. I forgot you’ve never liked me weighing in on things because it doesn’t fit your view, but it doesn’t change what I know about these matters. I know what I’m talking about here, and I’ve had more than enough personal experience before I was a cop to hold water when it comes to my opinion on that side of things.

I’ve offered my opinion and professional knowledge, and despite what you think, you’re simply not correct when it comes to your black and white assessment of this.

[killramos]

.

- - - Updated - - -
I wasn’t aware that you were privy to all the caselaw, my personal and professional experiences, and my investigative dealings with such things. I forgot you’ve never liked me weighing in on things because it doesn’t fit your view, but it doesn’t change what I know about these matters. I know what I’m talking about here, and I’ve had more than enough personal experience before I was a cop to hold water when it comes to my opinion on that side of things.

I’ve offered my opinion and professional knowledge, and despite what you think, you’re simply not correct when it comes to your black and white assessment of this.

I never claimed any of those things.

However I am very comfortable pointing out that you are also woefully misrepresenting the reality of the situation and I believe the ivory tower you live on has completely deluded you into having this sense of absolute knowledge on pretty well any kind of legal situation. You should probably take a good read over your forum signature and how it pertains to the way you choose to present yourself on here. And you have the audacity to accuse me of making a situation black and white? Get the fuck over yourself.

End of the day neither what you or I have to say on the matter will change anything.

I am very comfortable with my assessment of the real outcome of a civilian using a firearm defensively in this country. The example I provided was real, and was consistent with how the crown treated a victim defending himself against a group who were clear in their intentions to murder him. If someone decides they want to hurt you in this country neither the criminal code or the police are going to be there to defend you.

What the criminal code has to say on defense is one small aspect of the tools that the crown will use against someone who defends themselves with a firearm in this country in a “throw mud on the wall and see what sticks” scenario.

Overall I maintain my stance that when the shit hits the fan, you are fucked no matter what decision you make.

As for my firearms? They are locked away, well out of use in a home invasion because I know what would happen if they were ever to be used outside of the limiting sporting scenarios which my license permits me to use them for. If you even write self defense in your PAL application it will be denied. That’s reality.

[gwill]

I can appreciate why you think using your guns will only make things worst in court killramos but that will typically be because of gun owners escalating things to the extreme.

Have there been any recent self defence court cases from home owners defending themselves in a life and death scenario?

The only recent one i recall was the home owner in Fairview who shot a person who did a home invasion on his house. I didn't quite understand why he was charged for shooting someone... only guess is they charged him as he was prohibited from owning any guns.

[phil98z24]

I never claimed any of those things.

However I am very comfortable pointing out that you are also woefully misrepresenting the reality of the situation and I believe the ivory tower you live on has completely deluded you into having this sense of absolute knowledge on pretty well any kind of legal situation. You should probably take a good read over your forum signature and how it pertains to the way you choose to present yourself on here. And you have the audacity to accuse me of making a situation black and white? Get the fuck over yourself.

End of the day neither what you or I have to say on the matter will change anything.

I am very comfortable with my assessment of the real outcome of a civilian using a firearm defensively in this country. The example I provided was real, and was consistent with how the crown treated a victim defending himself against a group who were clear in their intentions to murder him. If someone decides they want to hurt you in this country neither the criminal code or the police are going to be there to defend you.

What the criminal code has to say on defense is one small aspect of the tools that the crown will use against someone who defends themselves with a firearm in this country in a “throw mud on the wall and see what sticks” scenario.

Overall I maintain my stance that when the shit hits the fan, you are fucked no matter what decision you make.

As for my firearms? They are locked away, well out of use in a home invasion because I know what would happen if they were ever to be used outside of the limiting sporting scenarios which my license permits me to use them for. If you even write self defense in your PAL application it will be denied. That’s reality.

You must have a more comprehensive knowledge than I to make such a claim that I don’t know as much as I do. Otherwise, how would you reach such a conclusion? I get it. You don’t like the facts. You don’t like that someone else knows more about something than you. Fine. You present as a know it all and always have, and it simply doesn’t change the fact that I know some things. That’s not me being an in ivory tower - that’s my world and what I work in, and I expect you’d have the same breadth of knowledge in your field.

I’m trying to contribute and you’re giving me static, lol. Get over yourself.

[Gman.45]

I'm going to disagree with you completely on all these points. I know I'm about to sound like a dick by saying this, but this is coming from a place of experience and dealing with the boundaries of these laws all the time, so please don't think I'm being a jerk here.

Comparing use of carefully considered, intelligence driven tactics and decisions in order to make a lawful apprehension of an offender who is causing a serious public safety risk which could potentially end in lethal force, and using lethal force to repel someone who is merely in your presence and moving towards you are completely different scenarios.

One is borne out of a bonafide, reasonable and probable belief that someone will be hurt if someone in a position of authority with a lawful duty to act doesn't do so, who is also afforded the necessary protections under section 25 of the CC to act in extraordinary circumstances. That's also an intelligence led tactic, as most LE tactics are, that are generally reactive and based on what we know and what foreseeable consequences could arise out of inaction compared to action. LE is also doing that because they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that person MUST be apprehended there and then and is doing so under lawful authority.

The other is borne out a fear that because someone is in a home and could potentially be strung out or other nefarious reasons that likely don't present themselves at the time. The police can't use lethal force without a bonafide, reasonable and probable belief that it's absolutely required and can be articulated. I would never be able to justify shooting someone in the dark or who refused to obey a lawful order (especially merely being told to leave a premises) just because they started moving towards me when I can't see a weapon or any means of causing me grievous bodily harm or death. That's negligent, and reckless. A citizen engaging using the exact same criteria as LE has in the past is actually completely opposite of what you're saying they should be able to do. Can you imagine some idiot who is drunk and bumbles into someone's home, not obeying orders and being a generally ignorant louse like most hammered people are, advancing on someone and ending up with rounds in their body for....... what? Being unlawfully in a dwelling house?

Again, we are comparing apples to oranges here, but as a general rule using lethal force to repel a "potential" lethal encounter without a reasonable basis to believe that's what's going to happen is simply not reasonable. Just my two cents.

Well said - It's me that should apologize, not you, sorry to make a somewhat bait post before, obviously I don't believe that LE in Canada are setting up kill boxes and drawing threats in to the X, but I really wanted to see what you'd say regarding an advancing threat, be it with a vehicle, weapon, or just bad intentions and their fists. I agree with your perspective, but what I'm interested in is the average citizen without authority, radio comms for backup (or backup already on scene with a partner or another unit), who is alone, with a threat on their property. See your position here - " I would never be able to justify shooting someone in the dark or who refused to obey a lawful order (especially merely being told to leave a premises) just because they started moving towards me when I can't see a weapon or any means of causing me grievous bodily harm or death. That's negligent, and reckless", IMO is much different than a civilians. Also you're looking at it from an apprehension position somewhat, where as for a civilian they aren't interested in apprehending, just making the threat leave and/or not harm them or their family. Regarding the "in the dark" thing, I wasn't advocating engaging anyone in the dark, one of the 4 critical rules is identifying your target, and illuminating a threat with a good white light IMO should be something any property owner considering an active defense should be trained and equipped with.

You and LE unlike most civilians have other options you can go to in the force continuum or whatever you call it these days. You have training and experience in unarmed combat, you have a conductive energy weapon frequently I'd guess, an expandable striking tool, and hopefully and most importantly another person on your side with you. This compared to a 125lb woman or even average joe man who ends up face to face with a threat in their home. Say that home owner did arm themselves - even if that threat isn't armed, if they start to close with them, what are the options for the civilian then? Time-distance-cover, the home owner is going to be giving up lots of the first 2. Should they allow that threat to get into range where their retention of their weapon becomes an issue? This is a more precise question I should have asked, again, I'm completely against shooting anyone over only property loss or trespassing, but when that threat starts closing distance vs a homeowner who IS armed and telling them to leave, what is LE and the courts position on a situation like that? I realize this isn't the USA, and in many stand your ground states if a threat acted in this manner, it frequently ends up being a legal shoot. I'm not sure how I feel about that TBH, especially here in Canada, but with the drug crisis and property crimes on the rise in rural areas, this could be a more regular scenario.

Thanks for participating Phil, most of us here appreciate your opinion and the time you take here, and I'm glad you and the other LE here stick around Beyond.

[revelations]

Whether you like it or not or are willing to admit it or not the average canadian citizen is completely fucked when it comes to using a firearm in self defense. Police officers? Not so much.

You need to look at some of the cases where people have done this in Canada. Intruders (either store or home invaders) have been shot and killed and the home owners, while charged in some cases, have either gotten charges dropped, or won in court.

Saying that we are 100% fucked using a weapon as self defense is incorrect and in no way reflects reality.

There are probably a dozen cases in Canada the last 30 years where this has happened. I know of a case (Port Alberni BC?) in the 90s where a owner shot a fleeing criminal in the back and was either aquitted or had the charges dropped.

The example of the NFLD home owner recently is the same - all charges dropped by the crown. Not sure why the RCMP even bother to press charges in a clear cut case of self defense in that situation.

[gwill]

I don't think the defence laws have been tested much since 2013 when Harper supposedly made them better. IMO it would be nice for the laws to be less subjective but we don't need to please the people who have itchy trigger fingers who want to become judge and executioner.

[killramos]

You must have a more comprehensive knowledge than I to make such a claim that I don’t know as much as I do. Otherwise, how would you reach such a conclusion? I get it. You don’t like the facts. You don’t like that someone else knows more about something than you. Fine. You present as a know it all and always have, and it simply doesn’t change the fact that I know some things. That’s not me being an in ivory tower - that’s my world and what I work in, and I expect you’d have the same breadth of knowledge in your field.

I’m trying to contribute and you’re giving me static, lol. Get over yourself.

I think you just have a problem with people standing up to you. Sorry if I don't choose to curl up in the corner and cower when you flash your "badge" ( aka "I am a cop, therefore, I am right" ).

Guess what, you aren't a lawyer, you aren't a legislator, you aren't a prosecutor, you aren't a judge. Being a part of the system does not make you an expert on a subject by default. You like to use your profession as a crutch, one that no one should question, but frankly, you belong to a group that are well known for spewing incorrect information on the subject. That comes from people who are actual experts on the subject, which is fine it's not your job just stop pretending that being a police officer makes you an expert in legal interpretation.

You mention me having a breadth of knowledge in my field? Well, the first rule of that is knowing what the bounds of your practice are and not presenting yourself as an expert in areas that you have a mere rudimentary knowledge of. Its called professionalism, and in my world running my mouth about shit I don't have a full understanding of is liable. Even in situations that I do fully understand and can be considered appropriately versed, that doesn't mean I am immune from being questioned. Like it or not.

Now that's not to say you are not allowed to engage in discussion, I am not a lawyer or a legal professional in any sense, however it means you need to get down in the dirt with the rest of us and accept that your knowledge is not infallible and when you act in such a way you come off as a callous asshole.

Everything you post drips in arrogance, you aren't even willing to admit you aren't an expert "because of muh experience". You haven't actually posted anything that goes against the points I have made. Instead, you decide just to engage in stupid semantical games and put words in my mouth. If you want to just post your words on the internet and not have people question them. I recomend writing a blog instead.

So please, if you are so interested in "contributing" to the discussion why don't you apply your breadth of knowledge and experience to explain to my peabrain how realistic it is to say that a homeowner can use effective force in the form of a firearm, which you admit the criminal code clearly allows for, without spending the next years in court and tens of thousands of legal fees defending your actions from the standard rash of criminal administrative offenses from the firearms act let alone the rest of the criminal code.

You might think that I have in issue with police, or even you personally, that just isn't true. The reality is it's your attitude that I take offence to and I will call you out for it every god damned time.

- - - Updated - - -


You need to look at some of the cases where people have done this in Canada. Intruders (either store or home invaders) have been shot and killed and the home owners, while charged in some cases, have either gotten charges dropped, or won in court.

Saying that we are 100% fucked using a weapon as self defense is incorrect and in no way reflects reality.

There are probably a dozen cases in Canada the last 30 years where this has happened. I know of a case (Port Alberni BC?) in the 90s where a owner shot a fleeing criminal in the back and was either aquitted or had the charges dropped.

The example of the NFLD home owner recently is the same - all charges dropped by the crown. Not sure why the RCMP even bother to press charges in a clear cut case of self defense in that situation.

My issue is not so much whether or not people are aquitted in the end, with good enough lawyers and time and money i would say things tend to work out the way they should, its whether you are dragged through the mud bleeding cash for years fighting charges that should reasonably have never been laid in the first place. It is punishment by process and lots of people would probably rather go to jail than be bankrupted by a legal system that demonizes firearms use.

This is what happens to the supposed victims of crime.

:dunno:

[Gestalt]

I don't think the defence laws have been tested much since 2013 when Harper supposedly made them better. IMO it would be nice for the laws to be less subjective but we don't need to please the people who have itchy trigger fingers who want to become judge and executioner.

Precident has well been established. No one has been convicted for defending thmselves but they then try to get them with bullshit little charges like the poor saskatchewan farmer now with improper storage.

Its irresponsible to assume an intruder is unarmed. Shoot first. Your life depends on it

Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

[revelations]

My issue is not so much whether or not people are aquitted in the end, with good enough lawyers and time and money i would say things tend to work out the way they should, its whether you are dragged through the mud bleeding cash for years fighting charges that should reasonably have never been laid in the first place. It is punishment by process and lots of people would probably rather go to jail than be bankrupted by a legal system that demonizes firearms use.

This is what happens to the supposed victims of crime.

:dunno:

Sir, you are not educated in what has happened in the past. People have shot and killed intruders in Canada and never saw a court room (nor lawyers).
Please, read up on the case law and educate yourself, instead of bashing people like Phil, who are well-versed with the Criminal Code and case law.

I had this discussion with a person like you about a year ago and their eyes were opened once I brought up the cases where people, who were legitimately defending themselves (and not shooting people in the back) and they were not even charged in many cases. I can dig up that discussion on FB but there are web sites in Canada dedicated to people who have acted courageously to defend themselves with equal (lethal) force that you can peruse at your own leisure.

The case in NFLD and the woman in SK who shot and killed an unarmed intruder are two recent examples of the top of my head where no lawyers were involved.

[killramos]

The case in NFLD and the woman in SK who shot and killed an unarmed intruders are two recent examples of the top of my head where no lawyers were involved.

No Lawyers eh?

10 seconds of google-fu, charges were dropped 6 months later.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/murder-charge-gilbert-budgell-dropped-1.4351371


Bob Buckingham, the lawyer representing Budgell in the case...

...
'Glad to get on with his life'
Buckingham added his client was "extremely pleased and happy" that the second degree murder charge has been dropped.

"He's been under this yoke for a year-and-a-half now. It's been very stressful and difficult on him, and he's glad to get on with his life."

You really sure lawyers were involved there?

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/mother-killed-man-in-self-defence-while-protecting-herself-children-in-preston-avenue-duplex-police

The woman in saskatchewan was still taken into custody, and I would bet she was consulting a lawyer in the month the crown took to decide what charges to lay. Its positive, but its certainly nowhere near enough of a precedent to make an argument that you aren't going to be targetting for legal ramifications if you use a gun in self defense.

I have plenty of education on the topic thanks. You can't cherry pick a couple of postiives and declare the the issue of self defense in Canada is resolved...

[revelations]

Thats fine, you can speculate all you want (and I am getting my cases mixed up regarding lawyers or no lawyers). When NO CHARGES have been laid, there is no reason to consult counsel (re the SK womans case).

Even with Mr. BUDGELL - he didn't spent untold $$$$$ defending himself in court (it never went to trial) - also note that he has a criminal record which, no doubt played into him getting charged in the first place.


My point was that NONE of the two quick examples 'went broke' trying to defend themselves - and yes an in-custody has the right to consult legal aid but she probably told her story and was released pretty quick.

Your position that we in Canada are automatically "100% fucked" for defending oneself with deadly force is asinine and has no basis in reality. Thats the issue.

[killramos]

So you would feel comfortable using a firearm in Canada in self-defense?

Simple question.

Because I sure as hell wouldn't, neither the government nor legal system really given me much reason to be. The truth is hidden in vague technicalities that provide no comfort to citizens. Works out pretty well for criminals though, not needing to be afraid of their victims is awesome.

Enshrining such a right a la castle law would go a long way to making me feel more comfortable with the situation, but I don't believe the country has any stomach for the concept.

[revelations]

So you would feel comfortable using a firearm in Canada in self-defense?

Simple question.

Because I sure as hell wouldn't, neither the government nor legal system really given me much reason to be. The truth is hidden in vague technicalities that provide no comfort to citizens. Works out pretty well for criminals though, not needing to be afraid of their victims is awesome.

Enshrining such a right a la castle law would go a long way to making me feel more comfortable with the situation, but I don't believe the country has any stomach for the concept.

The simple rules that I was told by other LEOs are: if you do need to use deadly force for an intruder inside your home (ie. not garage or backyard) - always shoot to kill (centre of mass) , never shoot in the back and always make 'sure' that the intruder has a weapon of some kind - could be a knife that they 'found' in the kitchen. Most shitheads are packing a weapon of somekind anyway so this is probably moot.

Some cops even recommend what shotty shells to use. Shotguns are unrestricted and can be kept around, unloaded. You can get a 8" shotty in Canada, legally.

And note, I am not talking about shooting someone breaking into your car in Forest Lawn. This is 4am, glass breaking and front door opening with heavy footsteps.

[killramos]

You didn't answer the question lol.

Some of those sound like the old wives tales like "after you shoot him to make sure you put a round in the floor/ceiling to make it look like you gave a warning" or "Use your 12 gauge shotgun, not a handgun". I have heard both from LEO's over the years.

I am clear on the last bit, that's what insurance is for, which is not self-defense.

[revelations]

The fact that I have it all planned out wasn't obvious enough for you? Yes is the answer.

The breaking into cars bit is where people are muddying some of the self defense claims. Thats getting into a grey area. Yes you can confront a shit head at 4am breaking into your car, but is it worth it?

And when cops tell you something like this, its usually not an old wives tale. I wouldnt bother with warning shots either. Its lights on the face (barrel mounted flash light), verbal warning to drop their weapon and then action if no response. This could all be over in 20 seconds.

[rx7boi]

So please, if you are so interested in "contributing" to the discussion why don't you apply your breadth of knowledge and experience to explain to my peabrain how realistic it is to say that a homeowner can use effective force in the form of a firearm, which you admit the criminal code clearly allows for, without spending the next years in court and tens of thousands of legal fees defending your actions from the standard rash of criminal administrative offenses from the firearms act let alone the rest of the criminal code.


No disrespect to anyone else who posted their own opinions but I'm gonna have to go ahead and quote this just for likes.

I don't own any guns but I don't like the idea that anything other than locking myself in a room and cowering in my own goddamn house is going to put me in a position where I have to answer to my actions towards the person who broke in.

My home is supposed to be my safe place but apparently I have to play 20 questions to assess a situation if the person just wanted to rob me blind, cause me harm, or apparently just wandered in from a drunken stupor. Meanwhile, there's probably every chance that if I'm too slow I end up dead. Throughout all of this, I'm expected to use only as much force as is required. That's funny because the last time I checked I didn't think that 4 cops needed to kneel on someone to subdue them either.

If by a miracle I stop the intruder, now I have to fight to defend myself in court with every chance that a jury might not see it my way, all because someone came into my house. LOL.

killramos, do you wanna connect a couple of soup cans between our houses and I'll ring you for backup?

[Rat Fink]

.

[killramos]

killramos, do you wanna connect a couple of soup cans between our houses and I'll ring you for backup?

:thumbsup:

[gwill]

No disrespect to anyone else who posted their own opinions but I'm gonna have to go ahead and quote this just for likes.

I don't own any guns but I don't like the idea that anything other than locking myself in a room and cowering in my own goddamn house is going to put me in a position where I have to answer to my actions towards the person who broke in.

My home is supposed to be my safe place but apparently I have to play 20 questions to assess a situation if the person just wanted to rob me blind, cause me harm, or apparently just wandered in from a drunken stupor. Meanwhile, there's probably every chance that if I'm too slow I end up dead. Throughout all of this, I'm expected to use only as much force as is required. That's funny because the last time I checked I didn't think that 4 cops needed to kneel on someone to subdue them either.

If by a miracle I stop the intruder, now I have to fight to defend myself in court with every chance that a jury might not see it my way, all because someone came into my house. LOL.

killramos, do you wanna connect a couple of soup cans between our houses and I'll ring you for backup?

I love the hypothetical scenarios that everyone who believes in shooting people dead seem to hold on to as a reason we should have castle law.

How many people have had a stranger kick in their front door? I would guess it's astronomically low. Now out of those who have how many own guns? Thats going to drop even lower... yet somehow people who don't own guns or have ever been targeted somehow think we need stronger castle laws???

This is too damn funny.

Gotta love those who speak from experience around here....

Castle laws arent needed and they won't be coming because of all the racist that started speaking out during the Stanley trial... thank your local racists for that.

[phil98z24]

I think you just have a problem with people standing up to you. Sorry if I don't choose to curl up in the corner and cower when you flash your "badge" ( aka "I am a cop, therefore, I am right" ).

Guess what, you aren't a lawyer, you aren't a legislator, you aren't a prosecutor, you aren't a judge. Being a part of the system does not make you an expert on a subject by default. You like to use your profession as a crutch, one that no one should question, but frankly, you belong to a group that are well known for spewing incorrect information on the subject. That comes from people who are actual experts on the subject, which is fine it's not your job just stop pretending that being a police officer makes you an expert in legal interpretation.

You mention me having a breadth of knowledge in my field? Well, the first rule of that is knowing what the bounds of your practice are and not presenting yourself as an expert in areas that you have a mere rudimentary knowledge of. Its called professionalism, and in my world running my mouth about shit I don't have a full understanding of is liable. Even in situations that I do fully understand and can be considered appropriately versed, that doesn't mean I am immune from being questioned. Like it or not.

Now that's not to say you are not allowed to engage in discussion, I am not a lawyer or a legal professional in any sense, however it means you need to get down in the dirt with the rest of us and accept that your knowledge is not infallible and when you act in such a way you come off as a callous asshole.

Everything you post drips in arrogance, you aren't even willing to admit you aren't an expert "because of muh experience". You haven't actually posted anything that goes against the points I have made. Instead, you decide just to engage in stupid semantical games and put words in my mouth. If you want to just post your words on the internet and not have people question them. I recomend writing a blog instead.

So please, if you are so interested in "contributing" to the discussion why don't you apply your breadth of knowledge and experience to explain to my peabrain how realistic it is to say that a homeowner can use effective force in the form of a firearm, which you admit the criminal code clearly allows for, without spending the next years in court and tens of thousands of legal fees defending your actions from the standard rash of criminal administrative offenses from the firearms act let alone the rest of the criminal code.

You might think that I have in issue with police, or even you personally, that just isn't true. The reality is it's your attitude that I take offence to and I will call you out for it every god damned time.

- - - Updated - - -



My issue is not so much whether or not people are aquitted in the end, with good enough lawyers and time and money i would say things tend to work out the way they should, its whether you are dragged through the mud bleeding cash for years fighting charges that should reasonably have never been laid in the first place. It is punishment by process and lots of people would probably rather go to jail than be bankrupted by a legal system that demonizes firearms use.

This is what happens to the supposed victims of crime.

:dunno:

I have no problem with people “standing up “ to me. The idea of being the law and enforcing it equating to absolute authority is goddamn ridiculous, and I’d thank you for not hanging that one around my neck, sir. That’s not me, and you’re grasping at straws. You aren’t questioning anything - you’re TELLING me I probably don’t know what I’m talking about... Maybe have a little review of your own post.

I encourage discussion and in fact, I love to engage in it with people at work. You’re mistaking me telling you that I am familiar with my own life, breadth of knowledge, experience, education, and training, and telling you I have the qualifications to know that I can contribute in a fulsome and meaningful way with being an arrogant dick who can’t be told I’m wrong and not having a clue, and being unable to back down. I don’t give enough of a crap about this to dig in my heels about this and take it to the extreme but being told I don’t know as much about this as I think I do by someone who has continuously presented as a know it all about everything around here is a bit much, so yeah, I’ll take a stand on that.

You don’t know what I did before this, and you certainly don’t know what I’ve done while in my current occupation. Trying to dismiss me while having no knowledge of my experience or education is incredibly arrogant and offensive. You assume I’m just simply some cop who tries to pass myself off as a legal expert, but I’m not - I’m someone who happens to have learnt quite a bit over the years both prior to and during my years doing this job, and that I wouldn’t be talking about it if I didn’t have a good grasp of this subject matter.

I’m more than willing to engage in discussion about why you’re wrong and what the law says about that, but I’m thinking my attitude isn’t the issue here.

[rx7boi]

I love the hypothetical scenarios that everyone who believes in shooting people dead seem to hold on to as a reason we should have castle law.

How many people have had a stranger kick in their front door? I would guess it's astronomically low. Now out of those who have how many own guns? Thats going to drop even lower... yet somehow people who don't own guns or have ever been targeted somehow think we need stronger castle laws???

This is too damn funny.

Gotta love those who speak from experience around here....

Castle laws arent needed and they won't be coming because of all the racist that started speaking out during the Stanley trial... thank your local racists for that.

I'm not sure if you're quoting me because you think I'm rooting for it, but shooting people for little to no reason would be silly for sure. And while firearms is the topic here, castle law isn't about firearms per se.

I don't like being afraid in my own home but if push came to shove, I'd rather keep my life than save a 55" TV if it meant a duty to retreat, but that's not for everyone and I wouldn't expect people to have to make the same choice.

I'm glad you mentioned that the chances of someone kicking in my door are astronomically low since they're likely not here for Bumdarts Thursdays :rofl:

I don't know how many people posting here are actually for a castle law, but I'm only saying I'm all for defending myself and that it can be difficult to assess a situation you're not familiar with. We are lucky that crime rates in Canada are lower than the US.

[J-hop]

Man, and I thought zhao wrote novels......

[HiTempguy1]

Man, and I thought zhao wrote novels......

It took about 30 seconds to read each of those posts, which were both well written and well explained.

Typical Beyond, can't read a post longer than two sentences.

[killramos]

I have no problem with people “standing up “ to me. The idea of being the law and enforcing it equating to absolute authority is goddamn ridiculous, and I’d thank you for not hanging that one around my neck, sir. That’s not me, and you’re grasping at straws. You aren’t questioning anything - you’re TELLING me I probably don’t know what I’m talking about... Maybe have a little review of your own post.

I encourage discussion and in fact, I love to engage in it with people at work. You’re mistaking me telling you that I am familiar with my own life, breadth of knowledge, experience, education, and training, and telling you I have the qualifications to know that I can contribute in a fulsome and meaningful way with being an arrogant dick who can’t be told I’m wrong and not having a clue, and being unable to back down. I don’t give enough of a crap about this to dig in my heels about this and take it to the extreme but being told I don’t know as much about this as I think I do by someone who has continuously presented as a know it all about everything around here is a bit much, so yeah, I’ll take a stand on that.

You don’t know what I did before this, and you certainly don’t know what I’ve done while in my current occupation. Trying to dismiss me while having no knowledge of my experience or education is incredibly arrogant and offensive. You assume I’m just simply some cop who tries to pass myself off as a legal expert, but I’m not - I’m someone who happens to have learnt quite a bit over the years both prior to and during my years doing this job, and that I wouldn’t be talking about it if I didn’t have a good grasp of this subject matter.

I’m more than willing to engage in discussion about why you’re wrong and what the law says about that, but I’m thinking my attitude isn’t the issue here.

See it was your arrogant little quip about “what do I know” that brought the whole topic into question. You can’t use your job as a shield for any criticism of your points, then not be prepared for people to point out flaws in that argument. So I am very clear in what my post said.

That whole tirade and you still won’t admit you aren’t an expert. Amazing.

Your little talk about loving discussions, I think that was right out of a Donald Trump speech. I love discussions, I have discussions all the time, people say I am great at discussions, really the best. But you didn’t actually say anything in that whole paragraph.

Write me off as a know it all all you want, frankly you come off exactly the same way every time you come on this forum. You calling me a know it all is quite rich actually. Are you actually capable of admitting the limits of your expertise? Doubt it.

You keep taking a black and white stand, on a very subjective and debatable issue, and it makes you look like a damn fool.

Personally, this is a discussion and narrative that I consider very important to me. One that I think I am well versed in. And I am not going to shut up just because you don’t like what I have to say.

So go ahead, contribute to the discussion. We are waiting.

Or you could keep calling me an idiot, no skin off my back either way.

[phil98z24]

See it was your arrogant little quip about “what do I know” that brought the whole topic into question. You can’t use your job as a shield for any criticism of your points, then not be prepared for people to point out flaws in that argument. So I am very clear in what my post said.

That whole tirade and you still won’t admit you aren’t an expert. Amazing.

Your little talk about loving discussions, I think that was right out of a Donald Trump speech. I love discussions, I have discussions all the time, people say I am great at discussions, really the best. But you didn’t actually say anything in that whole paragraph.

Write me off as a know it all all you want, frankly you come off exactly the same way every time you come on this forum. You calling me a know it all is quite rich actually. Are you actually capable of admitting the limits of your expertise? Doubt it.

You keep taking a black and white stand, on a very subjective and debatable issue, and it makes you look like a damn fool.

Personally, this is a discussion and narrative that I consider very important to me. One that I think I am well versed in. And I am not going to shut up just because you don’t like what I have to say.

So go ahead, contribute to the discussion. We are waiting.

Or you could keep calling me an idiot, no skin off my back either way.

There are clearly too many blurred lines between my work and what I know from my previous life and my personal life, and it’s not worth the shitstorm this is creating with certain users. This is pointless. This has turned into something utterly ridiculous and it’s getting all twisted.

I will leave with this being said: I’m not an expert. I never professed to being one. I didn’t use my job as a catch all for what I know, or to totally defend my position. Yes, it’s a part of my position but only a small part. You just can’t seem to get over that part of it for some reason. I posted directly to Gman speaking about law enforcement tactics and how these relate to personal self defence and why the two don’t really cross over in the way he may have thought. That’s it, that’s all. I’ve been very clear that what I know about this is part of my job, but not all of it. I have said that the idea of me being in an ivory tower is wrong and that my job does afford me some knowledge you simply don’t and can’t have, and you were offended by that. I’m sorry, what should I be saying to defend the things I know?

You replied to what I’ve said with your own quip about it all being nice in theory, and then go on to say what the reality is as if it’s simple fact when you’re clearly wrong. I’m telling you you’re wrong because through my time in my job, my previous experiences, and my education both prior to and during my career, I know it’s just not the case you lay out as reality. You don’t expect some pushback when you’re going to make a statement as you did? And I’m the one who has issue with being told I’m wrong? Lol.

You’re clearly having a hard time grasping that I’m not using my work as a shield, or saying it makes me a legal expert. You’re just not accepting that maybe what I’m saying happens to be coming from someone who does work as a police officer but also happens to have pretty serious knowledge of this particular area of law. You can’t seem to disassociate those two things because I’ve said that some of what I’ve learned happens to come from my particular line of work, and you’ve latched on to that like a pit bull.

I’ve not taken a black and white stance on this. I’ve said it’s subjective in how the courts approach it, but you’re getting all twisted and ignoring what I’ve said. I’m going to contribute to this discussion further but if people are going to say things that are absolutely verifiably wrong, like anyone else I’ll say something. You just happened to be the one who said it this time and I do know that to be the case. Clearly this is something you are quite passionate about, which is great - but I think it’s also ok to be wrong about certain things and have others point it out.

I’m out.

[msommers]

Hopefully not for good. I personally find your insights helpful and informative man.

[phil98z24]

Hopefully not for good. I personally find your insights helpful and informative man.

No, just this topic. I’m finding it difficult to contribute when my work, education, and personal experiences and knowledge are being lumped into one as a result of whatever I’m doing or how it’s being perceived. That’s obviously not anyone’s fault or anything being deliberately done, but there is a perception that I’m using my work as a trump card when I’m simply not doing that, but I’m also not going to post my CV and life story to gain credibility, haha. This has been a pointless endeavour to even argue anything but the original point, so I think any contribution I’ve had to this point has now lost all traction. :rofl:

[civic_stylez]

https://globalnews.ca/news/2635341/elderly-couple-robbed-in-violent-calgary-home-invasion/

This is why I believe in the right to self defense. Many robbers are meth head losers but there are also a lot of them that are out to cause harm. I would rather live with myself defending my family and spending all my money to do so than being too concerned about a court case and let some human trash break in to harm/kill my family.

I live in a 2 storey home. You can have whatever you want on the main floor, go for it. The second you take a step to come upstairs, its a different story. Laws or no laws, as a human and as a husband I will defend my family by whatever means necessary. If youre brave enough to continue coming up a flight of stairs when someone racks a Remington 870 or Mossburg 500, youre completely retarded or on meth in the first place.

Its a decision Ive made and a decision I will have to live with should it ever come to pass but I stand behind it. Its my .02 and Im sure the countless people who over evaluate every situation will disagree and thats totally fine. I respect your opinion to think Im wrong/crazy/hillbilly but I strongly believe in the "id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mentality.

[gwill]

I think I'm one of the more cynacil users in regards to police so I'll say thanks as well phil. Your post on the subject is in depth and specific. I wish your expertise could be used elsewhere to help open up a bigger discussion as the lines of what one can do is blurred by many online.

The social media posts talking of shooting others under the notion your protecting your property is quite extreme over the last 5-6 months.

No one wins when people don't understand the repercussions one will face when doing so.

[gwill]

https://globalnews.ca/news/2635341/elderly-couple-robbed-in-violent-calgary-home-invasion/

This is why I believe in the right to self defense. Many robbers are meth head losers but there are also a lot of them that are out to cause harm. I would rather live with myself defending my family and spending all my money to do so than being too concerned about a court case and let some human trash break in to harm/kill my family.

I live in a 2 storey home. You can have whatever you want on the main floor, go for it. The second you take a step to come upstairs, its a different story. Laws or no laws, as a human and as a husband I will defend my family by whatever means necessary. If youre brave enough to continue coming up a flight of stairs when someone racks a Remington 870 or Mossburg 500, youre completely retarded or on meth in the first place.

Its a decision Ive made and a decision I will have to live with should it ever come to pass but I stand behind it. Its my .02 and Im sure the countless people who over evaluate every situation will disagree and thats totally fine. I respect your opinion to think Im wrong/crazy/hillbilly but I strongly believe in the "id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mentality.

I don't think anyone will ever say don't defend your family. IMO the bigger issue is people include shooting a thief in your car or your shed over stupid property. People are misinformed & misguided on what self defence actually means to the courts/police.

I said this earlier but few people will ever be in a home invasion. If you are i would guess you don't have enough time to unlock your gun safe and load your guns.

[Matty_10]

These are the types of situations anybody could be in and the type of people we have to deal with.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatoon/homicide-saskatoon-tyler-applegate-homicide-1.4243876

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/gunshot-trespass-report-battleford-farm-1.4541625

If someone comes onto my farm and breaks into the garage sure I’d let them be as that’s what insurance is for. If they attempt to break into my home I’d have no problem shooting for the legs with a shotgun. Obviously every situation is difference and not everyone can address the situation so quickly in the heat of the moment, fight or flight kicks in.

Shit gets stolen all the time, quads, trucks mostly because all they need is a ride back to get back to the reserve. I luckily I live on a no thru road and am surrounded by ranchers so no one fucks with us.

[J-hop]

It took about 30 seconds to read each of those posts, which were both well written and well explained.

Typical Beyond, can't read a post longer than two sentences.

Typical beyond can’t get a joke :D

[Kloubek]

I’m out.

Come on Phil... you know how Beyond works. If you choose to voice your position, there's always someone on here to counter it. Just know that MOST of us appreciate the expertise in your field that you bring to this community.

[phil98z24]

Come on Phil... you know how Beyond works. If you choose to voice your position, there's always someone on here to counter it. Just know that MOST of us appreciate the expertise in your field that you bring to this community.

Lol, I’m good with the discussion and the opposing viewpoints, otherwise it would be pointless! :)

Not being ok with that would be immature and ridiculous, haha. I am just worried that I’m presenting in some manner I never intended to, and that my position on this matter is being muddied by my occupation regardless of what I say, and that what I know about this can’t be presented in a way that’s disconnected from it. It’s cool. I’m just taking a knee on this one. ;)

[revelations]

Lol, I’m good with the discussion and the opposing viewpoints, otherwise it would be pointless! :)

Not being ok with that would be immature and ridiculous, haha. I am just worried that I’m presenting in some manner I never intended to, and that my position on this matter is being muddied by my occupation regardless of what I say, and that what I know about this can’t be presented in a way that’s disconnected from it. It’s cool. I’m just taking a knee on this one. ;)

Hey Phil, could you present how you might defend yourself in a situation where, at 4am your front door breaks/smashes open and heavy foot steps start going through the house? (assume two assailants, armed with at least knives)

Do you keep a shotty in the house for eg?

[gwill]

a go fund me has been launched for the okotoks guy for any of you who want to support farmers who shoot thieves.... their hoping to raise $100,000

[rx7boi]

Hey Phil, could you present how you might defend yourself in a situation where, at 4am your front door breaks/smashes open and heavy foot steps start going through the house? (assume two assailants, armed with at least knives)

Do you keep a shotty in the house for eg?

Just playing devil's advocate but if you're going to ask a question like that, maybe word it that you don't know if the assailants are armed or not because I think you're likely to get the answer you're hoping for it you put that sort of bias into it.

Are you asking about burglary or armed robbery in specific?

[revelations]

I can almost guarantee that when 2 shit heads break into a home at 4am, through the front or back door, they are armed with at least one weapon. Therefore, a homeowner is wise to always expect a weapon.

[Gestalt]

I can almost guarantee that when 2 shit heads break into a home at 4am, through the front or back door, they are armed with at least one weapon. Therefore, a homeowner is wise to always expect a weapon.

Guaranteed. Maybe not a gun but for sure bear spray or a knife. The last scumbag that broke into a car in our fenced lot used something like a belt or strap with something hevy tied at the end. Camera couldnt make it out but definately would fuck you up if he hit you.

You'd be an idiot confronting burglers unarmed. Its the new way of the world.

[phil98z24]

Hey Phil, could you present how you might defend yourself in a situation where, at 4am your front door breaks/smashes open and heavy foot steps start going through the house? (assume two assailants, armed with at least knives)

Do you keep a shotty in the house for eg?

I'll PM you my thoughts on it. I don't want anything misconstrued as legal advice or anything representative of my work as you can understand that's a pretty loaded question, lol. I'll chat with you on a personal basis though. :)

[Rat Fink]

.

[Gman.45]

As I've said here before, and even in my line or work, get the hell out of there or out of the way and if you can't do that, then do what needs to be done.

This is something I think is important - we don't have stand your grand laws in Canada, and even in US states where they do, it can be a legal (and moral IMO) crapshoot relying on them. Retreating from a potentially violent situation is in most cases the best option if possible, of course, in the USA or Canada, however the "possible" part is the crux. IE the example everyone is using here, a threat who has illegally gained entry to your home/property, and is behaving in a threatening manner. If somebody lived alone in this scenario, obviously even if you've armed yourself the best option both tactically and legally is to retreat and escape. Again, time-distance-cover, by retreating you give yourself both distance and time, and also the potential to move into cover. My only issue with this is the vast majority of guys in this thread probably have a family, wife, kids, etc. It's fine for me being single to pull the pin and just book out, but gathering up your family while faced with some methhead advancing on you isn't really a great option. I just wonder what the courts, judge, and a jury would say regarding this, and if there is cases where this has been fleshed out already.

[Gestalt]

This is something I think is important - we don't have stand your grand laws in Canada, and even in US states where they do, it can be a legal (and moral IMO) crapshoot relying on them. Retreating from a potentially violent situation is in most cases the best option if possible, of course, in the USA or Canada, however the "possible" part is the crux. IE the example everyone is using here, a threat who has illegally gained entry to your home/property, and is behaving in a threatening manner. If somebody lived alone in this scenario, obviously even if you've armed yourself the best option both tactically and legally is to retreat and escape. Again, time-distance-cover, by retreating you give yourself both distance and time, and also the potential to move into cover. My only issue with this is the vast majority of guys in this thread probably have a family, wife, kids, etc. It's fine for me being single to pull the pin and just book out, but gathering up your family while faced with some methhead advancing on you isn't really a great option. I just wonder what the courts, judge, and a jury would say regarding this, and if there is cases where this has been fleshed out already.

This is a msiconception, as a canadian you can arrest someone you witness comitting a crime. You can use as much force as reasonable to arrest them. If they escalate, you escalate.

[speedog]

If not armed with conventional weapons, they’d likely have break-in tools which could be considered weapons (I know I could easily kill someone with a screwdriver or pry-bar). I’m pretty sure there would be two people with bullet holes in their chests and faces.

So are you saying that you have a loaded gun readily available in your home if such a scenario comes to be?

[J-hop]

This is a msiconception, as a canadian you can arrest someone you witness comitting a crime...

That actually isn’t true. Read up on citizens arrest and the conditions you can make an arrest. There are actually fewer cases where you can legally detain someone than can’t.

A lot of people don’t realize this.

As it applies to this thread yes (ie in your home). But the statement “as a Canadian you can arrest someone you witness committing a crime” is absolutely false as a blanket statement

[Rat Fink]

.

[killramos]

I would be a bit concerned that doing too much preparation to defend yourself in your home might construed violation of the terms of your license. Like having a full ready to go quick access safe setup in your bedroom with a mag loaded with hollow points for example.

I have heard people say don’t be tossing anything like a laser or a flashlight on it because it becomes hard to explain what the sorting purpose of those accessories are if you end up using it in an altercation.

I would personally want to be able to construe it as “A bad thing happened, and I just so happened to have a firearm accessible to defend myself” rather than making it too obvious how purposeful you are being. Makes it harder to frame your intentions after the fact.

[Gestalt]

That actually isn’t true. Read up on citizens arrest and the conditions you can make an arrest. There are actually fewer cases where you can legally detain someone than can’t.

A lot of people don’t realize this.

As it applies to this thread yes (ie in your home). But the statement “as a Canadian you can arrest someone you witness committing a crime” is absolutely false as a blanket statement

You absolutely can arrest someone you catch in the act. No misconceptions.

[revelations]

So are you saying that you have a loaded gun readily available in your home if such a scenario comes to be?

Thats what quick open gun safes and unrestricted shotguns are all about - pop a mag in (does not have to be loaded).

[revelations]

I would be a bit concerned that doing too much preparation to defend yourself in your home might construed violation of the terms of your license. Like having a full ready to go quick access safe setup in your bedroom with a mag loaded with hollow points for example.

I have heard people say don’t be tossing anything like a laser or a flashlight on it because it becomes hard to explain what the sorting purpose of those accessories are if you end up using it in an altercation.

I would personally want to be able to construe it as “A bad thing happened, and I just so happened to have a firearm accessible to defend myself” rather than making it too obvious how purposeful you are being. Makes it harder to frame your intentions after the fact.

You sir, sound like a full on paranoid liberal - completely being brainwashed by the liberal media/education system about our self defence laws. Literally everything you post in this thread are assumptions and have no basis in reality. Having a literal ammo/weapons dump in your house is not illegal (when stored legally) nor can it be used to "judge" your mindset when defending yourself and your home. You can be a collector, sport shooter, hunter etc.

The case will be viewed on the merits of the perpetrator and the use of equal force by the defendant. Thats why when I said that the perps are 'always' armed, it means just that.